Teaching evolution in the 21st century America

This course gives teachers the background and skills they need to counter pressures to present or address religiously based alternatives to the theory of evolution. It is offered for self study or group study, and can be used as a guide for a professional development workshop. It features materials developed for the NOVA program “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.”

Course goals include:

* understanding the nature of science and the major concepts and theories in evolutionary biology;
* understanding the legal history of the creationism/evolution issue;
* explaining why intelligent design and other religiously based alternatives to the theory of evolution are not science and do not belong in the public school science classroom; and
* generating strategies for responding to a parent or school board insisting that intelligent design be included in a biology curriculum.

Session 1: Evolution, Science, and Intelligent Design. Why are intelligent design and other religiously based alternatives to evolution not science?

After completing this session, you will be able to:

• describe the theories of evolution and intelligent design and explain why parents filed a legal suit against the Dover Area School District to prevent intelligent design from being taught;
• evaluate the nature of science and the major arguments of intelligent design;
• explain why intelligent design is not science;
• explain the major concepts and theories in evolutionary biology, particularly as they relate to challenges by intelligent design proponents; and
• generate strategies for eliciting students’ ideas about evolution and intelligent design.

Session 2: The Impact of Kitzmiller v. Dover. Why are intelligent design and approaches such as “teach the controversy” inappropriate for the science classroom?

After completing this session, you will be able to:

• explain the social and historical significance of Darwin’s theory of evolution;
• describe the legal history of the creationism/evolution issue;
• explain the evidence that intelligent design is a new form of creationism;
• explain why intelligent design does not belong in the public school science classroom; and
• generate a knowledgeable response to a parent or school board insisting that intelligent design be included in a biology curriculum.

Undoubtably we will soon hear from the Discovery Institute that they have submitted the program to a dozen or so experts who will argue that Nova is subverting the constitution of the United States and more. A press conference will be organized and announced with much fanfare only to be canceled just before the event was supposed to take place.

As a teacher I happen to oppose teaching quantum mechanics to the lower grades (elementary) as well. That has nothing to do with it’s rightness. It’s called pedagogy and development. Talking to someone who just learned how to tell time on a clock about a difficult concept like deep time is a waste of time.

One of the biggest problems leading to the crowded science courses in high school is the lack of good science in the elementary and middle schools. The crowded schedule comes from having to pack in ideas that could have been developed in the earlier grades. It is very difficult to find elementary and middle school teachers who aren’t themselves uncomfortable with math and science.

Another issue is the apparent belief that classes at any level must be directed to the bottom of the class in order to bring along the “slow” learners. Many of these “slow” learners are falling behind because they do not have proper exposure to an external world at home or in school. They have been left to wallow in their inner selves without proper guidance about the external world in which they exist.

There are literally hundreds of topics and techniques that can introduce some of the fundamental ideas that show up in modern “advanced” science. These can be brought to the attention of young children in a way that is both natural and fun.

For example, the vibrating strings of musical instruments and wave motions in water contain many of concepts that are part of quantum mechanics. Expanding ripples on a pond can lead to the ideas relating to inverse-square-law behavior of sound and light as well as the notion of an expanding universe.

The growth of crystals, snowflakes, icicles and stalactites include ideas that help understand the concepts of natural selection and evolution. Looking at old buildings and monuments and comparing them with new and modern ones begins to give children a sense of time, history and change that goes beyond their inner sense of these.

Any visit to a good science museum during the summer can help a teacher find dozens of ideas suitable for children.

Unfortunately, most of the education of elementary and middle school teachers does not contain enough exposure to common physical phenomena. Much of it is directed to the inner life of children which, while necessary for the understanding of children, detracts from a rich external world from which children can learn and grow. Most children, if they are not autistic in some way, respond quite easily and naturally to phenomena in the external world. Guiding them to subtle details that can stimulate their growth and curiosity should be something for all teachers to strive for.

If these kinds of thoughts and activities took place more naturally in the lower grades, it would be much easier and more natural to make the transition to the ideas underlying modern physics, chemistry, and biology. Enlightened families are often able to do this in spite of the schools, and the results are spectacular. I have known families with children who had Downs Syndrome who brought their children to a high level of functionality and curiosity by using these methods.

This by itself would go a long way to reducing the need to constantly wrangle with the anti-science fundamentalists about curriculum and evolution.

I don’t know. Am I right, to any degree, that the viewpoint is naive, or am I just jealous that I wasn’t involved in developing it?

“generating strategies for responding to a parent or school board insisting that intelligent design be included in a biology curriculum.”

This hasn’t been the anti-evolution movement strategy for years now. They’ll insist that they want evolution taught, don’t want ID taught, and then ask you in an insulting manner what you’re afraid of. Shouldn’t there be a stated goal of rejecting the disingenuous “critical analysis of weaknesses in evolution” language?

We teach geology, biology, etc. in the lower grades. Why shouldn’t evolutionary theory be taught in the lower grades? The fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory—that all life on earth is descended from a universal common ancestor—is easily statable in a single sentence. An overview of the evidence supporting that assertion is will within the grasp of elementary schoolchildren.

If sixth graders can be taught binomial expansions, they can be taught at least the rudiments of evolutionary theory.

Just like we teach math and literature in lower grades, why not teach evolution. Of course, math is simplified to additions, multiplication etc and literature to learning the alphabet and reading simple books.

Now that I’ve looked at it briefly, this is very counter productive. I guarantee you that teachers, admins, and politicians looking for a “balanced compromise” will use parts of this for classroom presentations “presenting both sides”. These lesson plans are always used to implicitly, or explicitly, leave the impression that there is alternative science showing evolution science is in error. This will be used as just another strategy to get this crap into the classroom.

Sorry, WW, but cockiness and self confidence doesn’t cut it here. You have been accused of quote mining, which is a form of lying. It is easy to disprove, so dispove it already. If you can’t, then stop lying to us, oh moralistic one.

In other words, you have nothing of substance to offer and rather quote mine Woese as if his opinion is somehow relevant?

I assume that you have no opinions of your own here?

William Wallace does have opinions of his own. However, because he formed them without actually taking the time to educate himself about Evolutionary Biology, and continues to refuse to educate himself, his opinions concerning biological and or educational issues are of absolutely no consequence, or even relevance whatsoever.

Sorry, WW, but cockiness and self confidence doesn’t cut it here. You have been accused of quote mining, which is a form of lying. It is easy to disprove, so dispove it already. If you can’t, then stop lying to us, oh moralistic one.

Meanwhile, having a flowchart that says “when stumped, allege quote mining. If quote not mined, dismiss as irrelevant, or the rantings of a senior scientist, etc. This doesn’t pass for scientific reasoning. It is propagandizing. Just be honest.

PvM asked:

I assume that you have no opinions of your own here?

My opinion is Nova is out to lunch on the teaching of evolution. Nova’s recent film, Intelligent Design on Trial should be studied in high school. In a class on films. In the same way that Leni Riefenstahl’s “documentary” Triumph of the Will should be studied (as a brilliant example of propaganda).

* * *

I agree with almost everything Mike Elzinga wrote until he got to the:

non sequitur:

This by itself would go a long way to reducing the need to constantly wrangle with the anti-science fundamentalists about curriculum and evolution.

Maybe one day it will even become a respectable thing to teach. The status of biological instruction, especially in the high schools, disturbs Woese. “Biology is poorly taught in general at the high school level,” he says, referring to the polarization of evolution by the scientifically heterodox. “Scientifically, the matter is simple. The essence of biology is evolution, and biology should be taught from an evolutionary perspective. Yet, although evolution is covered to some extent in high school biology courses, it bears the scarlet letter and is taught in a guarded fashion, embalmed in caveats. The reason for this is obvious, as are the pressures on textbook publishers.”

It is peculiar that WW thinks the issue of dealing with fundamentalist anti-evolutionists is a “non sequitur” of some sort.

A fact, to which anyone reading the posts on this site can attest, is that the fundamentalists who splatter their crap here never ever demonstrate that they have any insight into the mind of any deity or that anything in their sectarian dogma is true. They arrogantly expect they are exempt from demonstrating or offering any evidence for any of their claims, and then they go on to demand replies to their claims.

They enjoy freedom of religion and tax exemption for their sectarian dogmas (protected by the Constitution), yet they constantly emerge from their churches and interfere with the secular educations of other people’s children. They live in and are protected by a secular society, governed by secular laws and a tax supported law enforcement and a military composed of people who have given their lives and made great sacrifices.

Yet they continually violate the rights of others wanting obtain a high quality secular education in order to live in a real world with the skills and knowledge needed to navigate such a world. For well over a century they have politically interfered with science education in the public schools without ever demonstrating they have a proper understanding of science or that they know anything about their so-called deity.

For centuries they have fought and killed each other over who has the correct dogma, but they never recognize or admit this as evidence that they know nothing about deities.

What would constitute crime and fraudulent activity in any non-sectarian group is, in their case, passed over and exempt from prosecution because of “free exercise of religion”. Street bullies who threaten or beat up kids returning from school with books under their arms can be prosecuted and thrown in jail. Fundamentalists, who continually threaten and disrupt school boards, teachers, and politicians in order to prevent modern science from finding its way into the classroom, get a free pass.

What is more, they can form institutes that employ career propagandists who spend millions of dollars quote-mining, distorting, campaigning, interfering, confusing, and all the while running up the costs of administering secular education by interfering with the administrative and legislative bodies set up to do this. This run-up in cost is money paid out by other people who want nothing to do with sectarian dogma, but simply want a good secular education. And these propagandists are answerable to no one.

Where do these sectarian propagandists think they get the “authority” to tell career scientists and experts what is and what isn’t true? How does someone who has never demonstrated any special insight into anything demand a say in the secular educations of strangers? Only profound ignorance, hatred, arrogance, and a political goal of a sectarian theocracy can provide such a drive. And only a complacent secular society can permit it.

Thus, there has to be the courts, Panda’s Thumb and other organizations, supported by knowledgeable scientists and secular society, to throw the spotlight on this fraud.

So, like it or not, WW is now being profiled (along with FL and the other scam artists who practice their shtick here). If lurkers like what they see, they are free to go join his church.

Nova is out to lunch on the teaching of evolution. Even Carl Woese opposes teaching the theory in the lower grades.

I’m sorry, William, but I’ve looked through the Nova site and I find no reference to “teaching the theory in the lower grades”. Specific grade level is not mentioned, but it seems oriented to high schools.

Would you please tell me where you found the mention of “lower grades”?

The only problem that this would have would be the religious children and their parents. The truth is evolution needs to be taught and taught more often. There is no problem with everything coming from a common ancestor though religious people would claim that ancestor is Adam and not apes. That is the only thing that the theists will never get.

Mike Elzinga sabre rattled:
…So, like it or not, WW is now being profiled (along with FL and the other scam artists who practice their shtick here)…

What the heck does that mean? Sounds racist if you ask me. Is it retaliation for agreeing with 19 out of 20 of your sentences, and pointing out that the last sentence did not follow from the previous 19?

As for the rest of your rant, where to begin? How about:

I agree that churches should not be tax exempt. But then again, as a conservative, I think taxes should be much lower than they are now.

This country was founded by Christians.

Freedom of religion is recognized in the Bill of Rights, as is Freedom of Speech, the right to petition the government (including school boards).A republican form of government and freedom of speech allows non-scientists to have a say at school board meetings. If you don’t appreciate government recognition of freedom of speech, many other countries that suppress it are available and willing to accept .

The courts should not be deciding what is and what is not science, especially if deciding judges have to resort to plagiarizing the ACLU. I think PZ Myers agrees with everything up to the comma, but I could be “quote mining”.

I know you’re happy with Judge Jones, but what if Judge Jones had been a conservative who could think of and write his own decisions? Be careful what you wish for.

As Ann Coulter wrote in Goddless, “The Darwinists have saved the secular sanctity of their temples: the public schools. They didn’t win on science, persuasion, or the evidence. They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a sliver platter.(Coulter 2006 Godless p. 200)

To plagiarize and “quotemine” Ann Coulter and the Beatles, treating doubts about evolution as religious heresy isn’t going to make it with anybody any how.

Yeah, WW is getting boring. It’s the same old “Judge Jones shouldn’t decide if ID is science” rot. William, your sources of info are terrible. The defense asked Judge Jones to decide that. You are making a fool of yourself in so many ways. The Discovery Inst. is making you ‘tapdance, monkey’.
Your quote of the Beatles is sooooo ironic. You are like the person carrying the book of Chairman Mau, dogma, dogma dogma.

People who understand evolutionary science want it taught because those who have actually done the work see it as the best explanation of life on the planet.

The fact that your fable disagrees with reality is just tough darts for you. Nobody cares.

The fight isn’t against Christianity, it’s against bullshitters like you, William Wallace, who more often than not, are a particularly intolerant, arrogant, and ignorant minority of Christians. If you were Muslim or Hindu or Shinto, and still a bullshit artist, we’d still be fighting against you.

I agree that churches should not be tax exempt. But then again, as a conservative, I think taxes should be much lower than they are now.

I didn’t say that churches shouldn’t be tax exempt; I said fundamentalist anti-evolutionists enjoy freedom of religion and tax exemption. It is a privilege they abuse to tear down other faiths and interfere with the secular educations of others.

Why shouldn’t churches, which typically carry out functions and charity that are important to the welfare and traditions of people, enjoy tax exemption? It’s the fraud that hides behind religion to beat up on others and enslave rubes and children that is the problem. They have the freedom and the tax exemption they wish; however they should not expect to hide from scrutiny.

This country was founded by Christians.

Try learning some proper history; and read some Thomas Jefferson.

If you don’t appreciate government recognition of freedom of speech, many other countries that suppress it are available and willing to accept .

Freedom of speech is not freedom from accountability; something that continues to be highlighted here, and something fundamentalist trolls continue to avoid.

The courts should not be deciding what is and what is not science, especially if deciding judges have to resort to plagiarizing the ACLU.

Frank B already answered this. Go to the NCSE web site and pull down all the transcripts of the trial and read them until you comprehend.

I know you’re happy with Judge Jones, but what if Judge Jones had been a conservative who could think of and write his own decisions? Be careful what you wish for.

Read Judge Jones’ decision. Also read his talks to various organizations. Consider where the death threats to him and his family came from. Then reconsider what you would wish for.

As Ann Coulter wrote in Goddless, …

Good god, man! Is this your source of deep insight? What kind of intellectual starvation drives you to devour this crap? Where in hell have you been?

Get a proper education before you go shooting off your mouth about things for which you have no comprehension whatsoever. As everyone here has noticed; you give religion a bad name.

That abortion is being discussed on this thread is the apparent result of PvM attempting discredit my arguments indirectly by bringing attention to unrelated arguments I had made elsewhere.

No. Pim was bringing attention to your credulousness in citing only sources that say what you want to hear.

I was pointing out that your information was woefully incomplete.

I also pointed out that there is no relevance in comparing deaths from flu with abortions. It’s like relating the performance of the England cricket team to the GDP of Sweden. Both involve numbers that change on an annual basis. Unless you can now explain how abortion rates can be compared with paediatric flu deaths in any way at all…?

Unfortunately for PvM, those arguments are substantiated by the sources.

And, unfortunately for you, the “arguments” are hollow and nonsensical irrespective of the accuracy of the sources.

Nigel D. seemed to be challenging the magnitude of abortion in the United States, per a quote from my cite.

As I say above, I was pointing out that your information was incomplete. If you are going to try and assemble an argument from data that you obtain elsewhere, you must cite all of the relevant information on your site, rather than force your readers to refer to the original source (or accept that the data actually do say what you allege that they say). Otherwise, your argument becomes nothing more than arm-waving.

Could it be that a certain troll is making ludicrous claims and failing to back them up?

Could it be that that same troll is refusing to answer comments made in response to his claims, especially where they contain substantive criticisms of his claims?

Could it be that that same troll refuses to answer simple questions to help clarify his position?

Could it be because that troll is deliberately mischaracterising the opposing side of the issue, because that is the only way he can argue against it?

Could it be because that troll is libelling a federal judge?

Could it be because that troll is making wholly illogical arguments and claiming that they prove something?

Could it be that the same troll is picking at trivial details of comments made in refutation of his claims while utterly ignoring the core substance of the arguments against his claims?

No. It is all of the above.

WW, you are a liar. You have supplied enough evidence in this one thread to convince me that you do not genuinely believe your own allegations. Go away until you are prepared to engage in a civilised (i.e. polite* and honest) debate.

* I’m not referring to the use of rude words, but to the way you steadfastly ignore the points raised against your arguments.

I am currently working on an entry for my blog that explores one of the ways well funded humanist organizations and their sugar daddies (such as Paul Allen) manipulate the masses via documentaries, and inoculate the next generation by persuading their public school teachers to suppress dissent from Darwinism with well produced propaganda courses.

ROTFL… Now that is irony for you when good science becomes manipulation and poor science becomes science. Only from the gullible creationist can one expect such manipulation of language.

How is that praying coming along Wallace?

Regarding Christianity, I pray that I do not mislead any others through my comments or through intemperate behavior.

I think I am going to… make like a tree, and leave the thread to the self congratulatory declarations of victory that are about to ensue.

Two weeks ago, it was “Keith Eason”, tucking in his tail with…

I’m as free as can be to come or to go because I’ve accomplished my goals…

Like I said back then, though trolls come and go, at least one thing has been absolutely consistent with the creobots in all the time I’ve been reading this blog.

Every time some bottom feeder says “I’ve won, now I’m leaving” it invariably means that said troll has been backed into a corner when he just plain doesn’t have any answers for the passel of follow up questions that come his way after he spouts his long-discredited creationist drivel.

Of course he doesn’t have any answers, why would he? It’s not like anyone in his little intellectual circle has any real information anyway, and nobody has ever had the spark to actually take a good look at the rickety old talking points in the first place.

So what does our creationist buddy always do to cover the fact that he can’t put any money where his mouth is? He put on a mask of false bravado, claims victory, feigns some ridiculous excuse and turns tail to flee back to the arms of people who nod eagerly as he yammers on in all his clueless glory.

Always

Once again, it has all the sincerity of the scandal-ridden politician who announces that he’s resigning not for lack of support or popularity, but because he “wants to spend more time with his family”.

Next time, after you come back to troll with a new name (like trolls always do), just stop commenting and disappear when you finally can’t put your money where your mouth is. It’s classier.

Our dear friend AnonymousNM is having some problems with reality when he reports the following on William Wallace’s website where I addressed Wallace’s confusions about vaccination.

PVM seems to be spaming your site for his illiterate posts at Panda’s Thumb. You should block any hyperlinks to that shithole since this dishonest fool continues to malicously misrepresents you there. (“Neil Shubin: Your Inner fish” a success by any standard PvM on March 1, 2008 3:32 PM )

In addition to quote mining from your website, he inadvertantly had a fruedian ejaculation and referred to a contemporary piltdown man (the Titaalik transitional fossil) as an “infamous” missing link. Aside from this one accidental moment of honesty, PvM has no credibilty.

Eh? But the creos can’t even put their money where their mouth is from the word “go”. Look at this thread. The first comment is WW claiming that Nova is “out to lunch”. Despite repeated requests from other posters, he never even attempted to back up that allegation.

No, I think there is another reason why they go crying home to mommy, although I’m not yet sure what that reason is.

I recently read an old New Scientist (now thrown away) that described another of Dawson’s so called “finds”, the only known “frog in a rock” exemplar. “Frog in rocks” were once an urban myth, and Dawson’s effort to uncover one followed closely the same script as the Piltdown find. Besides confirming M.O., the frog has conspicuously shrunken much more than other mummified remains. A reader comment in a following NS magazine described a Dawson fraud in another area, IIRC a plaque describing a purported historical monument which was nothing but.

This you may expect from a man studying to be a lawyer. :-P But what is the common cretard excuse to not be able to distinguish between genuine and fraud?

William Wallace said that the Nova curriculum under discussion is “out to lunch” because

Whatever. The section is titled “Session 2: The Impact of Kitzmiller v. Dover.” The course not restricted to teachers in Dover, PA. Unless or until this or a similar court case makes it to a higher court, the decision is no more important than “Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution et al” will be when it is decided.[2] [3] If the course includes a description of how important novel district court cases that have not been appealed are, as written by the American Center for Law & Justice, I will withdraw my critique.[4]

Notice that the section is titled “Session 2: The Impact of Kitzmiller v. Dover”, NOT “Session 2: The Legal Impact of Kitzmiller v. Dover”. To understand the distinction, note that Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was not a legal decision and had no legal impact at all. But it did have an impact. If Kitzmiller v. Dover has had so little impact, why did the Discovery Institute bother to publish a book about it?

Dan: if you actually did read the references I cited before I referred to you as “Lazy Dan,” I do want to apologize. I assumed you hadn’t bothered.

Not to worry. In fact I did read the references you cited – how else would I know they were irrelevant to your claim? But your name-calling actually had a positive effect: In the fall of 2006 I had run a half-marathon and a marathon; but last fall only two half-marathons. Your calling me lazy made me realize that my daily runs were only about five miles, and if I want to run another marathon this fall, I need to step up my training.

AnonymousNM doesn’t even rise to the level of religious extremist. Or creotard. Moron or loon maybe, or both.

This is a standard accusation (and lie) when yet again another transitional fossil is found. They are all fakes. The exact number of fossils found is unknown but must be in the many millions to billions range. To fake all those would take an enterprise about the size of General Motors and would be hard to hide. And that doesn’t even account for all the elves and fairies who have to wander the earth hiding them in rocks.

In addition to quote mining from your website, he inadvertantly had a fruedian ejaculation and referred to a contemporary piltdown man (the Titaalik transitional fossil) as an “infamous” missing link. Aside from this one accidental moment of honesty, PvM has no credibilty.

Love the support :-)

Yeah, guess your joke needed an audience with a sense of humor.

Besides, while the Titaalik find is more dramatic than most individual pieces of evidence, it’s the agreement among a huge number of pieces that really supports the theory, not each piece taken one at a time. Too much attention on indivudual finds can cause people to miss that it’s the overall pattern that’s important.